I love Sony!

[Anita]

OK, I have everything Sony and love it. It is industry standard in the video broadcast industry and I think the little digital DSC's with the Carl Zeiss lenses are incredible for what they do.

However, I am in the market for a professional digital SLR and am hearing that Sony is coming out with one.

Anybody heard of this and when?

 

[Johnboy2978]

I don't know about professional quality, but they currently have the Alpha 100 which is a dslr, probably more "enthusiast"? level. Not sure how you would qualify it. Several around here shoot w/ it.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438938-REG/Sony_DSLRA100_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html

 

[Anita]

I was thinking more on this line.. with this kind of lens.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463900-REG/Sony_DSLRA100H_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html

 

[Seefutlung]

The Sony will produce a professional quality image ... but the camera is far below both Nikon and Canon in professional features and at the price listed I suspect that build quality is also far below Canon and Nikon professional series of cameras.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I also am a Sony fan, and know that Sony has set the pro standard within a few years every time they've decided to enter a sector - video equipment and sound production (and reproduction) just to name two. Sony WILL come out with a pro-level camera. The good thing is that there are hundreds of good Konika Minolta lenses that will fit the Sony camera (Sony bought the two merged companies two years ago as a jump-start into the sector.) If you're going to build a camera system, Sony is a very smart bet. If you need pro-level stuff now, think about how you're defining that. Right now their sensors are quite good - they make the sensors for Nikon, which are considered market leaders right now. Sony's are NOT weather-sealed, so if you're going to Iraq you'll need something with better dust seals. I think their build quality is fine, but no better than the mid-level products from Nikon or Canon.

Good luck, there's a lot of great products out there from many highly competent companies. This is a highly competitive sector, and as consumers its raining goodies these days as they compete for our affection.

 

[gizmo2071]

Don't the top line nikons use Sony sensors?

 

[usayit]

Yes. Last time I checked..

80% of all the digital cameras used sony sensors. Canon's DSLRs use their own sensors.. BUT. Canon's point and shoots use Sony too.

 

[Anita]

Great advice Iron! Thanks.

One of my collegues told me that a Sony pro camera is coming out sometime at the end of this year, but I can't find any info out about it.

 

[Iron Flatline]

They are definitely coming!

They exhibited these as a foretaste:

 

[Don Simon]

So Seefutlung... would you say the Sony is well below the D40 in professional features and well below the Rebel in build quality? Consider the sector the A100 is aiming for...
Sony is however coming out with a more advanced model that is designed to compete with the D200 or 30D, and a further professional-grade model. If they can live up to the standard set by the old Dynax 7 and 9 among Minolta's other higher-end cameras then they will be very impressive... the problem of course being that you can't buy them yet

 

[carusoswi]

So Seefutlung... would you say the Sony is well below the D40 in professional features and well below the Rebel in build quality? Consider the sector the A100 is aiming for...
Sony is however coming out with a more advanced model that is designed to compete with the D200 or 30D, and a further professional-grade model. If they can live up to the standard set by the old Dynax 7 and 9 among Minolta's other higher-end cameras then they will be very impressive... the problem of course being that you can't buy them yet

After much inner debate, I purchased the Alpha 100. I have read and heard plenty about how it is not pro-level. But, after doing my own research, I decided that it meets my needs.

I'd love to see a listing of what makes a D200 a more professional setup than the A100. My guess is that for most of us, there is no appreciable difference. If you need to shoot at 8 fps, then, obviously, the A100 isn't for you. What else is there? I'm shooting in RAW, so, I could care less about in-camera processing.

So, again, I'm wondering, what else is there? When I was shopping, I kept hearing about the build quality, that the Sony is more plastic, the Nikon a metal frame, etc. Ok, if you knock your equipment around, maybe that's important . . . it does not, however, affect the quality of the pictures you are able to take with either system. I am an avid cyclist, so, I appreciate the lighter weight of the Sony. I also own Minolta mound AF lenses that work with the Sony system.

The D200 would have set me back some $3,000 to get the system I now own as a result of sticking with the Minolta mount.

That wouldn't figure in for everyone, but it was a consideration for an old Minolta man like me.

These sorts of threads always seem to attract comments from posters who own one or the other system, but haven't used them both. Rather than comments from folks who are just repeating what they've read or heard, it would be nice to hear from someone (if there be such a person) who has used both the N200 and the A100.

Caruso

 

[jon_k]

The Sony will produce a professional quality image ... but the camera is far below both Nikon and Canon in professional features and at the price listed I suspect that build quality is also far below Canon and Nikon professional series of cameras.

A big question here. What's the difference between an enthusiast and professional camera? I'm just wondering what the key difference is between two said lines of cameras.

I shoot with an E-500. It's a prosumer level camera, but not a pro camera. I mean is there anything different in the construction between a prosumer / enthusiast and a pro body? I'd just like some definitions of "pro" features that make a pro body a pro body.

 

[sothoth]

I'd just like some definitions of "pro" features that make a pro body a pro body.

I'm not a pro, but if I were, I'd upgrade my digital rebel to a pro model Canon or Nikon with a full-frame sensor, which should produce better images compared to an APS-C sensor even when the pixel count is identical.

The digital rebel doesn't have a sealed body, so as one of the earlier posts pointed out, you shouldn't take it to Iraq without expecting problems with sand intrusion into the camera.

The pro models have a faster processor (generally) which translates into a much faster FPS rate when shooting continuously.

These are just a few key differences. A real pro can tell you why they want these features or if I left out any other cool features.
But the features I mentioned mean very little to me since I don't have any plans to go to Iraq any time soon, the quality of the images on my APS-C sensor is just fine for what I do, and I don't often shoot continuous shots. Perhaps more importantly, I'd like to buy a camer body that I won't cry over if I have to upgrade it every 2-5yrs, so I don't want a pro body, instead I'd like an entry level dslr that won't break the bank.

 

[Don Simon]

carusowi... while I see where you're coming from, I'm not just "repeating what I've read or heard" here. I've handled both of those cameras, among many SLRs and other cameras of various types over the years. I currently own neither a Nikon nor a Sony system (though I previously used the Minolta Dynax 35mm system), so I have nothing to prove there. My post was not meant as a criticism of Sony but actually a defence.

It's good that you decided the Sony meets your needs despite it "not being pro-level". All that really matters about equipment is whether it meets your needs. For you, for me, and for the vast majority of folks, that does not mean a product designed for professionals, so why should it not being "pro-level" even enter into it?

That said, it should be acknowledged that cameras are built to different standards, with different materials, some being more advanced mechanically and/or electronically... and with price tags to match. The D200 for example (which according to Nikon's own literature the D200 isn't a professional camera anyway!) is not only metal-bodied but also weather-sealed. Now not everybody needs a stronger body or weather-sealing. Not everyone needs a particular metering system, a particularly high shutter speed, or for certain settings to be more adjustable. People have different priorities... in your case if you have Minolta lenses, obviously Sony is going to be the first choice, and if weight is an issue then clearly a lighter camera like the A100 is better. That doesn't mean there aren't advantages to more expensive products; it just means they aren't important to you.

To give an example, I used to use a Minolta Dynax 5... what I would consider the 35mm equivalent of the A100. But when I had the chance to get a Dynax 7 at a good price, I took it... the 7 not only had better spec in terms of shutter speed and continuous shooting... it was also IMO a much better design in that it placed every control you could possibly want on a separate dial or button, so controlling the focus and exposure was more quick and convenient. Its larger size also just felt more comfortable and provided for better balance, even if it was at the expense of being heavier... those were the things that mattered to me, not what "level" someone called it...

Now in theory I could have spent a lot more and got a Dynax 9. The 9 being yet more solid, having even higher "spec", in general being what some would consider "pro-level"... but I didn't need that. The advantages didn't outweigh the costs. Using a Dynax 7 didn't make me a better photographer than using a 5, but I felt it made my life easier. On the other hand I didn't need or want a 9... but other people did and paid the difference... that didn't bother me - why should it?

All of which is just my incredibly long way of saying... use what's most suitable and reliable for you, because that's all that really matters, not what someone else uses or says.

 

[sothoth]

One of my collegues told me that a Sony pro camera is coming out sometime at the end of this year, but I can't find any info out about it.

Sony is quite capable of making a camera that competes with Nikon and Canon's pro level models. It's just a matter of time for them to build on their P&S experience and transition the Minolta line over and start to get it up to par with the others. From the other posts I'm gathering that their pro model due out later this year will get them pretty close (or maybe all the way).

It will probably take some time for them to compete with the Canon 1D level of pro model, but then again, that's a tough camera for anyone to compete with.

With any sony product, I always hope they don't pull a "betamax" or "minidisk" stunt, but barring a few obvious screw-ups where they try to shoehorn a poor-fitting technology on the market for ages longer than they should, they're really a top-notch company that I expect to do a good job on cameras.